Did Peter and Paul Preach Different Gospels?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

No Basis: The Church Was Established on All the Apostles

• The question posed — hyperdispensationalism, or ultra dispensationalism: where Pentecostals say the church started on the day of Pentecost, they say it didn't start till later in Acts, or even till the end of Acts; Peter's preaching on the day of Pentecost was only for the Jews, Paul preached a different gospel than Peter did, and Paul's gospel is what we should obey today. Is there any basis for this in the Bible, and how do we answer it?
• There is no basis for this in the Bible, as he will show. But there is one positive point: in a backhanded way they're saying, 'If you Pentecostals are right, then we would have to obey Peter' — they seem to think they can't follow what Peter said because it wouldn't match what Paul said, so Peter must not apply to us. They just focus on Paul; they're not trying to explain Peter in terms of Paul. But Peter's message does require them to do something different — and it harmonizes with Paul's message.
• First of all, Jesus established the church on all the apostles. In Matthew 18, he gave the power to bind and loose to all the apostles. Matthew 16: he said he would build his church, and he gave this power in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. Matthew 28: he gave the great commission. The apostle Paul wasn't even in the church yet, and he gave the commission to the apostles — to go to all the world, not just to Jews. Depending on which version you read — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 1 all have different versions of the great commission — in them he says: go to every nation, to every human, to preach the gospel, to baptize the people, to teach them everything I've commanded you. That doesn't sound like, 'Your message is only for the Jews, and Paul will later come and bring my message to the Gentiles and to all the world today.'

Scriptures: Matthew 18; Matthew 16; Matthew 28

It Began at Jerusalem, on the Day of Pentecost

• Look more closely, for example, in Luke 24:47-49 — the words of Jesus: that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 'And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you' — but wait in the city of Jerusalem until you receive power from on high. So according to Jesus in the great commission in Luke 24, the church would start at Jerusalem, and from there the gospel would be preached — and it would start with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament church did not begin with the preaching of Paul at some later date; it began at Jerusalem.
• And as we see just a few chapters later, in Acts chapter 1, verse 4: wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father. And then verse 8: from there, when the Spirit has come, you'll be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the earth. So the paradigm for world evangelism — from Jerusalem all the way to the ends of the earth — did not wait till Paul; that was given to the original apostles. It's abundantly clear that the New Testament church was started with all the apostles, and at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit — not at some subsequent time, with Paul, in some different experience. In Acts 2:47, summarizing the church, it says: 'And the Lord added daily to the church those who are being saved.' So that's the church.

Scriptures: Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:4; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:47

Galatians 2: Paul Checked His Gospel Against Theirs

• Now the interesting role of the apostle Paul: if you look in Galatians 2, there was a conflict over do Gentiles need to be circumcised in order to be saved — and of course the answer that the whole church gave in Acts 15 was no. But Paul had some skirmishes in Galatia with these. And so he does establish that he had his own independent calling and message — but he was also careful to say it was in harmony with the apostles, not in conflict, not in contrast.
• If you look through Galatians 2: he says, after 14 years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, took Titus; I went up by revelation, and communicated to them — the people in Jerusalem, which would be the apostles — that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles. This is Paul's gospel that he's preaching to Gentiles — exactly what the hyperdispensationalists point to. Now he describes it: I went to the apostles and explained to them what I'm preaching to the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation — that's the apostles — lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. In some sense he was saying: I wanted to make sure that my message was the same as their message, because I didn't want to run in vain.
• He goes on to say how he disagreed with Peter, and even Barnabas, because they compromised these things — but he didn't say their authority was illegitimate, and he didn't say all the apostles' authority was illegitimate. To the contrary — verse 7: 'But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter — for he who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles — and when James, Cphus, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.'
• You might say, 'Oh, there were two different gospels — one for Peter, one for Paul.' But the context makes clear: 'No, it's the same gospel. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement.' When they saw we were preaching the same gospel, and they saw I had this ministry, they said: 'We're commissioning you to preach to the Gentiles, and Peter is going to be the leader to preach to the Jews.' It wasn't two different gospels; they were dividing up the work, based on the same gospel. And the only difference turned out not to be a difference: when he gave his whole gospel to them — 'This is what I'm preaching to the Gentiles' — they didn't say, 'Oh, that's different.' They basically said: 'The only thing we want to add to what you're saying is make sure you take care of the poor.' And he says, 'Well, I was already planning to do that.' Their one word of admonition turned out not to be any kind of conflict at all, but a harmony.

Scriptures: Galatians 2; Acts 15; Galatians 2:7

'So We Preach, and So You Believed' — and the Curse Dilemma

• Another example is in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 9-11. Paul, writing: 'For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all — yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.' And notice verse 11, 1 Corinthians 15:11: 'Therefore whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.' He's very clear: I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle, but God chose me, and I've actually accomplished more than all the others because of the grace of God — but it doesn't matter whether I'm preaching it or they're preaching it; it's the same, and it's what you believe. He's about as clear as he could be that it's not a different gospel.
• And even in the key passage in Galatians, where he said there's no other gospel — if anyone preaches another gospel, even an angel from heaven, let him be cursed — well, is that applying to Peter? If they have different gospels and Paul's is the right one, then by Paul's own statement, all the other apostles are cursed and damned, going to hell. But even the hyperdispensationalists don't want to put all the other apostles in hell for preaching a false gospel. So they're stuck: which is it? If it's two different gospels and Paul has the right one, the other apostles are cursed; otherwise, they have to admit it's the same gospel — just Peter preaching it to the Jews and Paul preaching it to the Gentiles. And it's pretty clear there's one gospel throughout the New Testament: given by Jesus to the apostles, fulfilled on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, and carried out. So we have to harmonize what Peter preached and what Paul preached — and thankfully, that's easy to do.

Scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:9-11; Galatians (book-only)

What Paul Received — and Preached — Was What Peter Preached

• The reason why: in Acts 9 — Paul's conversion; it's recorded in Acts 9 and Acts 22 — Paul was baptized in the name of Jesus and filled with the Holy Spirit. Exactly what Peter preached on the day of Pentecost. And then in Acts 19, when Paul was preaching, he told the disciples at Ephesus: you need to believe on Jesus. He baptized them in Jesus' name, he laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues. So when you look at what actually Paul received, it was what Peter preached. When you look at what actually Paul preached, it was what Peter preached. When you actually see what Paul implemented to Gentiles in Ephesus, it was the same message that Peter preached in Acts 2. So you can't make two different gospels out of it. The book of Acts clearly shows that Peter and Paul agreed on the one gospel and how to fulfill it. No matter who you are, you've got to take Acts 2:38 seriously.

Scriptures: Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 19; Acts 2; Acts 2:38

Scripture index: Matthew 18; Matthew 16; Matthew 28; Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:4; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:47; Galatians 2; Acts 15; Galatians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 15:9-11; Galatians (book-only); Acts 9; Acts 22; Acts 19; Acts 2; Acts 2:38.